de Montfort - ONE
Leo van de Pas
As several have been asking about this family I will
present what I have in my computer. However, it is far from
complete but at least the main personages should be mentioned.
Amaury I, Seigneur de Montfort
born circa 920, died 983
married 952
NN de Cambrai
son Generation I
--------------------------------------------
Generation I
1.Guillaume I, Comte de Montfort
born circa 960, died 1018
married
NN de Nogent, Dame de Montfort et d'Epernon
son Generation II
-------------------------------------
Generation II
1.Amaury II, Comte de Montfort
born circa 1000, died 1053
married 1028
Bertrade/Berteis de Gommetz, daughter of
Guillaume de Gommetz
children Generation III
--------------------------------------
Generation III
1.Eva de Montfort-l'Amaury
married
Guillaume Crespin, Seigneur du Bec
son of Gilbert Crespin, Seigneur du Bec, and
Gunnor d'Aunou
2.Simon, Seigneur de Montfort l'Amauri
born circa 1030, died 1087
married (1) Isabel de Broyes, Dame de Nogent
married (2) NN
married (3) Agnes d'Evreux, daughter of Richard,
Comte d'Evreux and Adele
born circa 1038
children Generation IV
------------------------------------------------
Generation IV
1st marriage
1.Elisabeth (Isabella) de Montfort
Dame de Nogent-le-Roi
married
Raoul III de Tosny, Sire de Conches, son of Roger I
de Conches and NN of Barcelona
2.Amaury II de Montfort
born 1056, killed in battle circa 1089
3rd marriage
3.Bertrade de Montfort-l'Amaury
born circa 1060, died after 1117 Fontevraud
married (1) 1089, annulled
Foulques IV 'Rechin', Count of Anjou, son of
Geoffrey Ferreol de Chateau-Landon, Count of Gatinais,
and Ermengarde d'Anjou
born 1043, died 14 April 1109
married (2) 1093
Philippe I, King of France 1060-1067-1108, son of
Henri I, King of France, and Anna of Kiev
born before 23 May 1052, died 29 July 1108 Meulan
4.Amaury III de Montfort, Count of Evreux, Sire de Montfort
died after 1136
married (1) (not entered as yet, sorry)
married (2) before 1127
Agnes de Garlande, daughter of Anceau de Garlande, Count
of Rochefort, and NN de Rochefort-en-Yvelines
died 1143
children Generation V
------------------------------------------------------
Philippe I, King of France
At age twenty, Philippe I, King of France, married
Bertha of Holland, the step-daughter of his first cousin.
This marriage had been arranged to seal the reconciliation
between the king and his first cousin, the Count of Flanders.
However, it took Bertha about six years before she produced a daughter,
Constance, which was not the hoped-for heir.
Arnoul, a holy hermit of Saint-Medard in Soissons who was always consulted
on family problems, prayed to heaven; however, it still took another three
years before the heir, the future King Louis VI, was born. He was followed
by three more sons.
Twenty years after the marriage, Philippe imprisoned Bertha in comfort
in the chateau at Montreuil-sur-Mer. He then wed the still-married Bertrade
de Montfort l'Amauri, wife of the Count of Anjou, and they produced four
children. It is lost in time whether she seduced him or he her, but most
likely Philippe had an understanding with the Count of Anjou. In any case
Bertrade was more than willing as she did not want to be "sent away like a
whore," as her husband had done to her predecessors.
Philippe's remarriage caused a sensation but not disapproval. The only
one who caused problems was Yves, bishop of Chartres, who had been
appointed by Pope Urban II without consultations with Philippe and this had
been resented by the latter.
The King had invited all bishops to his second wedding but Yves declined,
referring to Philippe as committing bigamy. Although Philippe had married
with the blessing of the Archbishop of Reims as well as the Papal legate,
Yves wrote to the Pope who then forbade the bishops to crown Bertrade and
told Philippe to cease all relations with her or else be excommunicated.
Next, Bertha, his first wife, died and Philippe gathered two archbishops
and eight bishops in Reims who all confirmed the royal second marriage. The
Pope also put pressure on the womanising Count of Anjou who then obediently
complained about the king's committing adultery with his wife. In 1096
Philippe pretended to have broken with Bertrade and consequently the
excommunication was lifted.
However, when it became obvious in 1099 that Bertrade was still with
him, the excommunication was renewed. It took until 1105 before peace was
restored and from then on Philippe and Bertrade remained together till
Philippe died in 1108.
-----------------------------------------------------
To be continued
Leo van de Pas
sk...@ix.netcom.com
This message deals with Amaury. Why after the II in the second
generation, is there another in the fourth? I and III are used -- are
these numberings generally accepted?
Then in part two (not copied here) there is a V in the sixth
generation and a VII in the eighth -- were there a IV and a VI? If
so, where would they fit?
Then as to SIMONs:
The first one, in the third generation, has no number and his
grandson is III. Was there a II, if so, where would he fit?
On 3 Jan 1999 19:41:19 -0800, leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
wrote:
>Beware!!!! This is far from complete!!!
>
>As several have been asking about this family I will
>present what I have in my computer. However, it is far from
>complete but at least the main personages should be mentioned.
>
>Amaury I, Seigneur de Montfort
>born circa 920, died 983
>married 952
>NN de Cambrai
> son Generation I
<SNIP>>--------------------------------------------
>Generation I
<SNIP>
>Generation II
>1.Amaury II, Comte de Montfort
> born circa 1000, died 1053
> married 1028
> Bertrade/Berteis de Gommetz, daughter of
> Guillaume de Gommetz
> children Generation III
>--------------------------------------
>Generation III
<SNIP> -------------------------------------
>Generation IV
<SNIP>
>
>2.Amaury II de Montfort
> born 1056, killed in battle circa 1089
>
<SNIPP>
sk...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>Beware!!!! This is far from complete!!!
>
>As several have been asking about this family I will
>present what I have in my computer. However, it is far from
>complete but at least the main personages should be mentioned.
>
>Amaury I, Seigneur de Montfort
>born circa 920, died 983
>married 952
>NN de Cambrai
> son Generation I
>--------------------------------------------
>Generation I
>1.Guillaume I, Comte de Montfort
> born circa 960, died 1018
> married
> NN de Nogent, Dame de Montfort et d'Epernon
> son Generation II
>-------------------------------------
>Generation II
>1.Amaury II, Comte de Montfort
> born circa 1000, died 1053
> married 1028
> Bertrade/Berteis de Gommetz, daughter of
> Guillaume de Gommetz
> children Generation III
>--------------------------------------
>Generation III
>1.Eva de Montfort-l'Amaury
> married
> Guillaume Crespin, Seigneur du Bec
> son of Gilbert Crespin, Seigneur du Bec, and
> Gunnor d'Aunou
>
>2.Simon, Seigneur de Montfort l'Amauri
> born circa 1030, died 1087
> married (1) Isabel de Broyes, Dame de Nogent
> married (2) NN
> married (3) Agnes d'Evreux, daughter of Richard,
> Comte d'Evreux and Adele
> born circa 1038
> children Generation IV
>------------------------------------------------
>Generation IV
>1st marriage
>1.Elisabeth (Isabella) de Montfort
> Dame de Nogent-le-Roi
> married
> Raoul III de Tosny, Sire de Conches, son of Roger I
> de Conches and NN of Barcelona
>
<SNIP>
Concerning Elisabeth (Isabella) and Raoul:
First, I have him as "Ralph" -- is there a prfeferred name for him?
Second, does anyone know the parents of NN of Barcelona?
Third, I have a line (below) from them to Henry V -- any corrections
will be gratefully read!
Descent of Henry V from ISABEL de MONTFORT
1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
+RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
+ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
+WALTER de CLIFFORD b: ca. 1113 d: 1190 m: ca. 1135
4 ROSAMONDE CLIFFORD b: ca. 1133
+HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
(not married - took up circa 1150)
5 WILLIAM PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1172 d: March 07, 1225/26
+ELA DEVERAUX b: ca. 1191 d: August 24, 1261 m: 1198
6 STEPHEN PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1216 d: 1260
+EMMELINE de RIDDLESFORD b: ca. 1223 d: 1276 m: 1243/44
7 EMMELINE PLANTAGENET b: 1250 d: 1291
+MAURICE FITZMAURICE FITZGERALD b: ca. 1250 d: 1286 m:1266
8 JULIANA FITZMAURICE b: ca. 1249
+THOMAS de CLARE b: ca. 1248 d: February 1287/88
9 MARGARET de CLARE b: Bet. 1280 - 1286 d: 1333
+BARTHOLOMEW de BADLESMERE b: 1275 d: April 14, 1322
m: ca. 1305
10 [1] ELIZABETH de BADLESMERE b: ca. 1313 d: June 08, 1356
*2nd Husband of [1] ELIZABETH de BADLESMERE:
+WILLIAM de BOHUN b: ca. 1312 d: September 16, 1360
m: 1338
11 HUMPHREY de BOHUN b: March 25, 1341 d: January 16, 1372/73
+JOAN FITZALAN d: April 07, 1419 m: September 09, 1359
12 MARY de BOHUN b: ca. 1366 d: July 04, 1394
+HENRY IV of ENGLAND b: April 04, 1366 d: March 20, 1412/13
m: 1380/81
13 Henry V of England b: August 09, 1387 d: August 31,
1422
DAMNED HOKEY EDITOR won't put the year in the same line
The names in ALL CAPS are (supposedly) in my ancestral line. If
there's bad news, it's better than no news!
Bryant Smith
Austin, Texas
Cristopher Nash
>
>>On 3 Jan 1999 19:41:19 -0800, leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
>>wrote:
>>>------------------------------------------------
>>>Generation IV
>>>1st marriage
>>>1.Elisabeth (Isabella) de Montfort
>>> Dame de Nogent-le-Roi
>>> married
>>> Raoul III de Tosny, Sire de Conches, son of Roger I
>>> de Conches and NN of Barcelona
>>>
>><SNIP>
>>Concerning Elisabeth (Isabella) and Raoul:
>>First, I have him as "Ralph" -- is there a prfeferred name for him?
>>Second, does anyone know the parents of NN of Barcelona?
>>Third, I have a line (below) from them to Henry V -- any corrections
>>will be gratefully read!
>>Descent of Henry V from ISABEL de MONTFORT
>>
>>1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
>> +RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
>>2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
>> +ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
>>3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
>Margaret had, according to my research, a brother, whose descendants
>involve two questions important to the ancestry of the Littleton
>family of early Virginia:
>
>3 ROGER de TOENI III b: ca. 1101 d: Bet. 1157 - 1162
> +IDA of HAINAULT b: ca. 1109
>4 RALPH de TOENI V b: ca. 1130 d: 1162
> +MARGARET de BEAUMONT d: Aft. 1185
>4 ROGER de TOENI IV b: 1160 d: Aft. December 29, 1208
> +CONSTANCE de BEAUMONT m: Bef. September 22, 1199
>6 RALPH de TOENI VI b: ca. 1190 d: 1239
> +PETRONILLA de LACY b: Bef. 1232 d: Aft. 1288
>7 ROGER de TOENI V b: 1235
> +ALICE de BOHUN
>8 ALICE de TOENI b: Bef. 1275 d: Aft. 1307
> +GUY de BEAUCHAMP
Alleged descents stemming from the putative marriage, referred to on this
thread, of Alice de Bohun and Roger V de Toeni/Tonei/Tosny/Toni/Tony pose a
real problem.
PEhlers531 wrote:
>
> Alice de Bohun married Sir Roger V de Toeni. They were the parents of Ralph
> VII de Toeni (1255-1295). Can someone fill me in on Alice de Bohun's
> ancestry? All help will be greatly appreciated.
Ed Mann <EDL...@mail2.lcia.com> answered:
>Here's a start:
>
>Direct Descendants of William I of England
[snip]
> 8 Maud d'Eu - 1241 ref #: č123-29
> +Sir Humphrey de Bohun V 1208 - 1275 ref #: W18-2
> 9 Alice de Bohun ref #: W101A-3
[snip]
>References:
> č = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
[snip]
> F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
> S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed.
> W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
I'm afraid here's another place where things get dicey. As I've said
before, alleged descents stemming from the putative marriage of Alice de
Bohun and Roger V de Toeni/Tonei/Tosny/Toni/Tony pose a real problem.
The argument for the marriage of Roger de Tonei (d. 1265) and Alice de
Bohun appears commonly to be based on data of the sort appearing in the
'Tony' article, CP XII, pt 1, which gives account of Humphrey de Bohun, E
of Heref & Essex, having the keeping of Roger s. & h. of Ralph de Toeny
during his minority (772, note c) & of a contract 1239 of m. betw Roger de
Tony V, then ae 3, & Alice da. of that Humphrey de Bohun. This article
says that the m. did take place, but that nothing more is known of Alice
except her burial, & that Roger m. an Isabel before 1255 (772, note h).
Some pedigrees depending on this marriage cite as source a marriage
contract in Excerpta Rot. Finium, I, 32, & MacLean's _History of Trigg
Manor, Cornwall_, I, 65. The contract we know about, but it can't prove
descents ascribed to such a marriage (such as that of Alice de Toni who m.
Guy de Beauchamp, E of Warwick).
Typical of the complications attaching to this line is: Jean LeMelletier,
_Les Seigneurs de Bohon_ (Coutances: Arnaud-Bellee, 1978), which is cited
online (Rand Geneal Club, www.rand.org/personal/genea/bohon.html) as saying
that "Cecilia or Alicia", da. of Humphrey de Bohun & Maud de Lusignan, m.
"Ralph [sic; not 'Roger'] de Toni".
...................................
Since writing the passage above I've checked the Maclean (which has often
been erroneously cited as _History of Trigg Manor, Cornwall_ when _History
of the Deanery of Trigg Minor, Cornwall_ is correct). It gives Roger de
Tony m. Alice de Bohun but cites the same evidence, viz. the childhood
marriage contract of 23 Hen III (1239) and Excerpta Rot.Finium, I, 327
[which is correct - not 32], and provides no confirmation that the marriage
took place. Meanwhile, CP XII, pt. 1, 772 note h (where the best case
possible is made out for Alice de Bohun) asserts with sources nevertheless
that Roger de Tony had married Isabel (--) prior to the birth of his son
Ralph de Tony VII (b. 1255), whose parents were the original subject of
this thread.
Has anyone yet checked Weis's source for this generation? (Here in England
I've Weis' _Anc. Roots_, 7th ed, & Faris, but not _Magna_Charta_Sureties_,
4th ed).
Again, unless anyone has seen evidence in support of this long-and-widely
published but tenuous descent of Ralph de Tony VII from Alice de Bohun, I'd
like to recommend that it be discarded in favour of Isabel (--) as mother.
In an earlier exchange, Richard Borthwick kindly pointed out that ES
III/4:706 clearly indicates that Ralph VII is the son of Isabel. But people
here know that I'm on record as one of those less likely to say of an ES
proposition, Well that's it then.
Cheers,
Cris
ED MANN
>
> Third, I have a line (below) from them to Henry V -- any corrections
> will be gratefully read!
> Descent of Henry V from ISABEL de MONTFORT
>
> 1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
> +RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
> 2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
> +ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
> 3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
> 4 ROSAMONDE CLIFFORD b: ca. 1133
> +HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
>
> (not married - took up circa 1150)
Here is where this falls apart. William Longespee's mother has been the
subject of much debate recently, but Rosamonde hasn't been a contender.
> 5 WILLIAM PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1172 d: March 07, 1225/26
> +ELA DEVERAUX b: ca. 1191 d: August 24, 1261 m: 1198
> 6 STEPHEN PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1216 d: 1260
> +EMMELINE de RIDDLESFORD b: ca. 1223 d: 1276 m: 1243/44
> 7 EMMELINE PLANTAGENET b: 1250 d: 1291
> +MAURICE FITZMAURICE FITZGERALD b: ca. 1250 d: 1286 m:1266
> 8 JULIANA FITZMAURICE b: ca. 1249
> +THOMAS de CLARE b: ca. 1248 d: February 1287/88
> 9 MARGARET de CLARE b: Bet. 1280 - 1286 d: 1333
> +BARTHOLOMEW de BADLESMERE b: 1275 d: April 14, 1322
> m: ca. 1305
> 10 [1] ELIZABETH de BADLESMERE b: ca. 1313 d: June 08, 1356
> *2nd Husband of [1] ELIZABETH de BADLESMERE:
> +WILLIAM de BOHUN b: ca. 1312 d: September 16, 1360
> m: 1338
> 11 HUMPHREY de BOHUN b: March 25, 1341 d: January 16, 1372/73
> +JOAN FITZALAN d: April 07, 1419 m: September 09, 1359
> 12 MARY de BOHUN b: ca. 1366 d: July 04, 1394
> +HENRY IV of ENGLAND b: April 04, 1366 d: March 20, 1412/13
> m: 1380/81
> 13 Henry V of England b: August 09, 1387 d: August 31,
> 1422
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
Π= Hardy, _Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America_,
[page].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>> Descent of Henry V from ISABEL de MONTFORT
>
> 1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
> +RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
> 2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
> +ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
> 3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
> +WALTER de CLIFFORD b: ca. 1113 d: 1190 m: ca. 1135
> 4 ROSAMONDE CLIFFORD b: ca. 1133
> +HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
***********************
> (not married - took up circa 1150)
> 5 WILLIAM PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1172 d: March 07, 1225/26
> +ELA DEVERAUX b: ca. 1191 d: August 24, 1261 m: 1198
> 6 STEPHEN PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1216 d: 1260
> +EMMELINE de RIDDLESFORD b: ca. 1223 d: 1276 m: 1243/44
> 7 EMMELINE PLANTAGENET b: 1250 d: 1291
> +MAURICE FITZMAURICE FITZGERALD b: ca. 1250 d: 1286 m:1266
I have two comments on this. The first regards the surname given gens.
5-7. While the Kings of England descended from Geoffrey Plantagenet are
often asssigned his nickname as their surname, none of them used it
until the 14th century. I can understand (though it is less than
accurate) the retroactive use of the name being applied to earlier
members of the family who otherwise are left nameless, this should not
be done when the individual had a byname which was used in contemporary
documents. #5 above was known during his life as William Longespee
(Longespee being a nickname), and this name was used by all of his sons,
and thus became an inherited surname. Since they actually used the
name, Longespee should take precidence over Plantagenet, which was not
used as a surname or nickname by any descendant of the Kings of England
prior to the father of Edward IV, 250 years later.
The second comment is more important. As has been discussed her ad
nauseum, there is surviving record of the name of the mother of William
Longespee. The Buckfast cartulary records two separate donations in
which William asked for prayers in memory of his mother, "Ida" (called
Countess Ida in one). Thus Rosamunde Clifford was not the mother of
William. (Curiously, the name Ida was used by the Toeni family, and
some sort of connection has been suggested during earlier discussions of
the Countess.)
taf
G . EDWARD ALLEN
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:59:27 GMT, sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >On 3 Jan 1999 19:41:19 -0800, leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
> >wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >>------------------------------------------------
> >>Generation IV
> >>1st marriage
> >>1.Elisabeth (Isabella) de Montfort
> >> Dame de Nogent-le-Roi
> >> married
> >> Raoul III de Tosny, Sire de Conches, son of Roger I
> >> de Conches and NN of Barcelona
> >>
> ><SNIP>
> >Concerning Elisabeth (Isabella) and Raoul:
> >First, I have him as "Ralph" -- is there a prfeferred name for him?
> >Second, does anyone know the parents of NN of Barcelona?
> >will be gratefully read!
> >
> >1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
> > +RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
> >2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
> > +ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
> >3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
> Margaret had, according to my research, a brother, whose descendants
> involve two questions important to the ancestry of the Littleton
> family of early Virginia:
>
> Robins' "Tentative Pedigree of the Littleton Family of Virginia" in 41
> New England Historic and Genealogical Register 364 (1887) states that
> Sir Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. (infra) married "Joan, widow of Philip
> Chetwynd ... and daughter of Sir William Burley, Knt., of Broomscroft
> Castle ... by his wife Ellen, daughter of John Grendon." But Dr.
> Robins is alone (as far as I have found) in his identification of Sir
> William Burley's wife. All of the other sources I have seen, which
> identify a mother of a Joan (or Joane, or Joanne) Burley who married a
> Littleton or a Chetwynd, identify said mother as Alice Grey (or
> de_Grey, or Gray). All of those sources show that Alice Grey was the
> eighth great grandaughter of Edward I. Many show more than one line
> of descent from Edward I to her.
And Dr. Robins alone is correct. The evidence can be found in Coll.
Hist. Staffordshire, William Salt Soc. 1915 "Walter Chetwynd's History
of Pirehill Hundred." I'm sorry that I don't have the exact page number.
The Burleys have been badly bollixed with two different Burley families
who adored the names John and William grafted together. We are
attempting to do a separation and print an article concerning it. That
is not a royal we. There are three of us working on the project.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
> +WILLIAM BURLEY b: ca. 1421 d: Aft. 1443
> 14 JOAN BURLEY b: 1425 d: March 22, 1504/05
> +THOMAS LITTLETON, K.B. b: 1421 d: Aug. 23, 1481 m: Aug. 1445
> He was the g-g-g father of Nathaniel, who immigrated to
> Virginia
> 15 Thomas
> 16 John
> 17 Edward
> 18 Nathaniel, b 1605 Shropshire, d. 1654 Accoman, Va.
> >
Leslie Mahler
> 6 STEPHEN PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1216 d: 1260
> +EMMELINE de RIDDLESFORD b: ca. 1223 d: 1276 m: 1243/44
>7 EMMELINE PLANTAGENET b: 1250 d: 1291
> +MAURICE FITZMAURICE FITZGERALD b: ca. 1250 d: 1286 m:1266
> +THOMAS de CLARE b: ca. 1248 d: February 1287/88
> 9 MARGARET de CLARE b: Bet. 1280 - 1286 d: 1333
> +BARTHOLOMEW de BADLESMERE b: 1275 d: April 14, 1322
>m: ca. 1305
Ive always had a bit of a problem with this line. Interesting to note
that you have Emmeline born about
1250 with her daughter born the year before! Ive examined this line here
before and had some chronological
problems.
One of these days I'll have to check some IPMs to see how valid the
connection is, particularly if Margaret and
her sister Maud are indeed the daughters of Juliana.
Leslie
sk...@ix.netcom.com
3 ROGER de TOENI III b: ca. 1101 d: Bet. 1157 - 1162
+IDA of HAINAULT b: ca. 1109
4 RALPH de TOENI V b: ca. 1130 d: 1162
+MARGARET de BEAUMONT d: Aft. 1185
4 ROGER de TOENI IV b: 1160 d: Aft. December 29, 1208
+CONSTANCE de BEAUMONT m: Bef. September 22, 1199
6 RALPH de TOENI VI b: ca. 1190 d: 1239
+PETRONILLA de LACY b: Bef. 1232 d: Aft. 1288
7 ROGER de TOENI V b: 1235
+ALICE de BOHUN
8 ALICE de TOENI b: Bef. 1275 d: Aft. 1307
+GUY de BEAUCHAMP
9 THOMAS de BEAUCHAMP b: February 14, 1312/13 d: November 13, 1369
+CATHERINE de MORTIMER b: 1309 d: Bef. September 06, 1369
m: 1334
10 MAUDE de BEAUCHAMP b: 1335 d: February 1402/03
+ROGER de CLIFFORD b: July 10, 1333 d: July 13, 1389
m: ca. 1358
11 PHILIPPA de CLIFFORD b: 1371 d: 1441
+WILLIAM FERRERS b: ca. April 25, 1372 d: May 18, 1446
m: ca. May 30, 1394
12 MARGARET FERRERS b: ca. 1395
Here is where things get a bit dicey. Margaret is treated in some
authorities as the mother of Richard Grey's children, and therefore a
link from them back to Edward I. However, it appears that those
children were born before Richard married her as his second wife, and
that Blanche Vache may be their mother. Ed Mann has Alice as dau of
Margaret and Reginald (Reynald) as son of Blanche. Can the question
be authoritatively determined?.
+RICHARD GREY b: 1392 d: August 1442 m: 1427
13 Reginald Grey b: ca. 1420 d: February 22, 1492/93
13 ALICE GREY b. ca. 1423 There is another issue here. R.P.
Robins' "Tentative Pedigree of the Littleton Family of Virginia" in 41
New England Historic and Genealogical Register 364 (1887) states that
Sir Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. (infra) married "Joan, widow of Philip
Chetwynd ... and daughter of Sir William Burley, Knt., of Broomscroft
Castle ... by his wife Ellen, daughter of John Grendon." But Dr.
Robins is alone (as far as I have found) in his identification of Sir
William Burley's wife. All of the other sources I have seen, which
identify a mother of a Joan (or Joane, or Joanne) Burley who married a
Littleton or a Chetwynd, identify said mother as Alice Grey (or
de_Grey, or Gray). All of those sources show that Alice Grey was the
eighth great grandaughter of Edward I. Many show more than one line
of descent from Edward I to her.
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For
he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er
so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in
England, now a-bed, Shall think themselves accursed they were not
here; And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought
with us upon Saint Crispin's day." William Shakespeare [1564-1616]
Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, Lines 60-67.
<snip>
Todd A. Farmerie wrote in message <36B11F...@po.cwru.edu>...
>The second comment is more important. As has been discussed her ad
>nauseum, there is surviving record of the name of the mother of
William
>Longespee. The Buckfast
That's reportedly "Bradenstoke Cartulary." How could you forget? <g>
>cartulary records two separate donations in
>which William asked for prayers in memory of his mother, "Ida"
(called
>Countess Ida in one). Thus Rosamunde Clifford was not the mother of
>William. (Curiously, the name Ida was used by the Toeni family, and
>some sort of connection has been suggested during earlier discussions
of
>the Countess.)
>
>taf
DSH
Dcrdcr4
In your recent posting, you refer to the wife of Maurice Fitx Maurice Fitz
Gerald as "Emmeline Plantagenet," daughter of Stephen "Plantagenet."
Actually, his wife is supposed to have been Emmeline Longespee, daughter and
co-heiress of Stephen Longespee. The Longespee family never used the name
Plantagenet, although Stephen's father, William Longespee, was a bastard son of
King Henry II of England.
Actually, I'm glad you raised the issue of the Fitz Maurice-Longespee match, as
it claimed repeatedly in print that Maurice and his wife, Emmeline, were the
parents of Juliana Fitz Maurice, wife of Thomas de Clare. It appears that
Thomas de Clare's wife wa named Juliana and I assume it is true that she was
the daughter of Maurice Fitz Maurice. However, Juliana's mother was NOT
Emmeline Longespee as claimed everywhere in print.
A careful examination of Emmeline Longespee's records shows that at her death,
Emmeline's IPM did NOT list Juliana as her daughter and heiress. Rather,
Emmeline's heir was her grand niece, Maud la Zouche, wife of Robert, lst Lord
Holand. In fact, all of Emmeline's property appears to have gone to Maud and
possibly to Maud's sister, Ellen.
As such, I think it is safe to say that Emmeline Longespee was NOT the mother
of Thomas de Clare's wife, Juliana, as commonly thought.
In this instance, I'm not certain just how or why historians tried to make
Emmeline Longespee out to be Juliana de Clare's mother as I can't find anything
to connect the two women. Regardless, Emmeline Longespee needs to be removed
as Juliana de Clare's mother.
Sorry, everyone, that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. As ever, Douglas
Richardson
Nathaniel Taylor
>sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> 4 ROSAMONDE CLIFFORD b: ca. 1133
>> +HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
>
>As has been discussed here ad nauseum, there is surviving record of the
>name of the mother of William Longespee. The Buckfast cartulary records
>two separate donations...
Todd, really. That's the 'Buschwa Cartulary', as one can conclude from
the attempts, ad nauseam [<=recte, BTW], by another poster to impugn its
value in this particular point.
Nat Taylor
Vickie Elam White
<< Todd, really. That's the 'Buschwa Cartulary', as one can conclude from
the attempts, ad nauseam [<=recte, BTW], by another poster to impugn its
value in this particular point. >>
Is that similar to a "Bush League" Cartulary? <G>
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Leslie Mahler
Many thanks for posting an analysis of this line.
As I remember, there was an article in NEHGR many years ago which was
entitled
"A Previously Unnoticed Descent from Henry I" or something like that,
which stated
that Emmeline was descended from one of Henry I's illegitimate sons. The
article also
stated that Emmeline had descendants through her two supposed daughters,
but Ive
always had a problem with the chronology, and Im glad that youve
provided the evidence
which gives us a correct perspective on this.
Leslie
Dcrdcr4
Cartulary.
All for now. Hastily, Douglas Richardson
D. Spencer Hines
This is taking on the aura of a not too impressive vaudeville act.
Who's on first?
Tell us about your book DR.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For
he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er
so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in
England, now a-bed, Shall think themselves accursed they were not
here; And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought
with us upon Saint Crispin's day." William Shakespeare [1564-1616]
Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, Lines 60-67.
Dcrdcr4 wrote in message
<19990130034035...@ng03.aol.com>...
sk...@ix.netcom.com
I'd be interested in the "other poster's" attempts to impugn its value
in this particular point. Can someone please point me to the posting,
or keywords for a Dejanews search?
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:37:51 -0500, nta...@fas.harvard.edu (Nathaniel
Taylor) wrote:
>In article <36B11F...@po.cwru.edu>, ta...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
>>sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 4 ROSAMONDE CLIFFORD b: ca. 1133
>>> +HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
>>
>>As has been discussed here ad nauseum, there is surviving record of the
>>name of the mother of William Longespee. The Buckfast cartulary records
>>two separate donations...
>
>Todd, really. That's the 'Buschwa Cartulary', as one can conclude from
>the attempts, ad nauseam [<=recte, BTW], by another poster to impugn its
>value in this particular point.
>
>Nat Taylor
sk...@ix.netcom.com
Nash) wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:59:27 GMT, sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Jan 1999 19:41:19 -0800, leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
>>>wrote:
>><SNIP>
<SNIP>>
>>7 ROGER de TOENI V b: 1235
>> +ALICE de BOHUN
>>8 ALICE de TOENI b: Bef. 1275 d: Aft. 1307
>> +GUY de BEAUCHAMP
>Alleged descents stemming from the putative marriage, referred to on this
>thread, of Alice de Bohun and Roger V de Toeni/Tonei/Tosny/Toni/Tony pose a
>real problem.
>
>PEhlers531 wrote:
>>
>> Alice de Bohun married Sir Roger V de Toeni. They were the parents of Ralph
>> VII de Toeni (1255-1295). Can someone fill me in on Alice de Bohun's
>> ancestry? All help will be greatly appreciated.
>
<SNIP>
>I'm afraid here's another place where things get dicey. As I've said
>before, alleged descents stemming from the putative marriage of Alice de
>Bohun and Roger V de Toeni/Tonei/Tosny/Toni/Tony pose a real problem.
>
>The argument for the marriage of Roger de Tonei (d. 1265) and Alice de
>Bohun appears commonly to be based on data of the sort appearing in the
>'Tony' article, CP XII, pt 1, which gives account of Humphrey de Bohun, E
>of Heref & Essex, having the keeping of Roger s. & h. of Ralph de Toeny
>during his minority (772, note c) & of a contract 1239 of m. betw Roger de
>Tony V, then ae 3, & Alice da. of that Humphrey de Bohun. This article
>says that the m. did take place, but that nothing more is known of Alice
>except her burial, & that Roger m. an Isabel before 1255 (772, note h).
What do we know of her burial? Vide infra (has DSH claimed a
copyright on that phrase?): Comparing the burial date with the birth
date of dau Alice (if known) might shed some light.
>Some pedigrees depending on this marriage cite as source a marriage
>contract in Excerpta Rot. Finium, I, 32, & MacLean's _History of Trigg
>Manor, Cornwall_, I, 65. The contract we know about, but it can't prove
>descents ascribed to such a marriage (such as that of Alice de Toni who m.
>Guy de Beauchamp, E of Warwick).
>
I'm sorry to say you're dealing with a rank amateur here, who can't
always interpret abbreviated citations well enough to go look for the
works. What is "CP?" What is the expansion of "Rot..?"
>Typical of the complications attaching to this line is: Jean LeMelletier,
>_Les Seigneurs de Bohon_ (Coutances: Arnaud-Bellee, 1978), which is cited
>online (Rand Geneal Club, www.rand.org/personal/genea/bohon.html) as saying
>that "Cecilia or Alicia", da. of Humphrey de Bohun & Maud de Lusignan, m.
>"Ralph [sic; not 'Roger'] de Toni".
>...................................
>Since writing the passage above I've checked the Maclean (which has often
>been erroneously cited as _History of Trigg Manor, Cornwall_ when _History
>of the Deanery of Trigg Minor, Cornwall_ is correct). It gives Roger de
>Tony m. Alice de Bohun but cites the same evidence, viz. the childhood
>marriage contract of 23 Hen III (1239) and Excerpta Rot.Finium, I, 327
>[which is correct - not 32], and provides no confirmation that the marriage
>took place. Meanwhile, CP XII, pt. 1, 772 note h (where the best case
>possible is made out for Alice de Bohun) asserts with sources nevertheless
>that Roger de Tony had married Isabel (--) prior to the birth of his son
>Ralph de Tony VII (b. 1255), whose parents were the original subject of
>this thread.
Is this a non-sequitur? May not Ralph VII have a mother different
from the mother of Alice (at least logically)? What's missing from
the puzzle is the birth date of dau. Alice.
>
<SNIP>
>Cheers,
>
>Cris
>
Thanks for the invaluable information. I hope to see more.
Bryant Smith
Austin, Texas.
sk...@ix.netcom.com
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>> Descent of Henry V from ISABEL de MONTFORT
>>
>> 1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
>> +RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
>> 2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
>> +ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
>> 3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
>> +WALTER de CLIFFORD b: ca. 1113 d: 1190 m: ca. 1135
>> 4 ROSAMONDE CLIFFORD b: ca. 1133
>> +HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
>
>***********************
>
>> (not married - took up circa 1150)
>> 5 WILLIAM PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1172 d: March 07, 1225/26
>> +ELA DEVERAUX b: ca. 1191 d: August 24, 1261 m: 1198
>> 6 STEPHEN PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1216 d: 1260
>> +EMMELINE de RIDDLESFORD b: ca. 1223 d: 1276 m: 1243/44
>> 7 EMMELINE PLANTAGENET b: 1250 d: 1291
>> +MAURICE FITZMAURICE FITZGERALD b: ca. 1250 d: 1286 m:1266
>
>I have two comments on this. The first regards the surname given gens.
>5-7. While the Kings of England descended from Geoffrey Plantagenet are
>often asssigned his nickname as their surname, none of them used it
>until the 14th century. I can understand (though it is less than
>accurate) the retroactive use of the name being applied to earlier
>members of the family who otherwise are left nameless, this should not
>be done when the individual had a byname which was used in contemporary
>documents. #5 above was known during his life as William Longespee
>(Longespee being a nickname), and this name was used by all of his sons,
>and thus became an inherited surname. Since they actually used the
>name, Longespee should take precidence over Plantagenet, which was not
>used as a surname or nickname by any descendant of the Kings of England
>prior to the father of Edward IV, 250 years later.
>
Noted. I have a great affection for good scholarship (else I wouldn't
be here), but the Plantagenet surname seems to be a bit of a bête
noire for TAF. In the practical world of genealogical software which
generates indices by surnames, "Plantagenet" turns out to be a handy
handle for keeping a grip on descendants of Geoffrey, at least down
through the Wars of the Roses; and so I at least, with a nod in the
direction of better scholarship, consign the better surnames of
Geoff's descendants to the AKA field.
>The second comment is more important. As has been discussed her ad
>nauseum,
... I can't resist it: Others have corrected it, but is that a matter
of spelling or of grammar, or perhaps just another typo, on TAF's
part? (It's a matter of declensions, your know.)
>there is surviving record of the name of the mother of William
>Longespee. The Buckfast cartulary records two separate donations in
>which William asked for prayers in memory of his mother, "Ida" (called
>Countess Ida in one). Thus Rosamunde Clifford was not the mother of
>William. (Curiously, the name Ida was used by the Toeni family, and
>some sort of connection has been suggested during earlier discussions of
>the Countess.)
>
I guess we don't know much about Ida, huh? Just another of Henry's
flings?
>taf
sk...@ix.netcom.com
>sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> Third, I have a line (below) from them to Henry V -- any corrections
>> will be gratefully read!
>> Descent of Henry V from ISABEL de MONTFORT
>>
>> 1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
>> +RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
>> 2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
>> +ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
>> 3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
>> +WALTER de CLIFFORD b: ca. 1113 d: 1190 m: ca. 1135
>> 4 ROSAMONDE CLIFFORD b: ca. 1133
>> +HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
>>
>> (not married - took up circa 1150)
>
>Here is where this falls apart. William Longespee's mother has been the
>subject of much debate recently, but Rosamonde hasn't been a contender.
Thanks, Ed. Who (other than Ida, see TAF's post) are/were the other
contenders, and can you point me to the postings or sources ot the
debate?
>
>> 5 WILLIAM PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1172 d: March 07, 1225/26
>> +ELA DEVERAUX b: ca. 1191 d: August 24, 1261 m: 1198
>> 6 STEPHEN PLANTAGENET b: ca. 1216 d: 1260
>> +EMMELINE de RIDDLESFORD b: ca. 1223 d: 1276 m: 1243/44
>> 7 EMMELINE PLANTAGENET b: 1250 d: 1291
>> +MAURICE FITZMAURICE FITZGERALD b: ca. 1250 d: 1286 m:1266
>> 8 JULIANA FITZMAURICE b: ca. 1249
>> +THOMAS de CLARE b: ca. 1248 d: February 1287/88
>> 9 MARGARET de CLARE b: Bet. 1280 - 1286 d: 1333
>> +BARTHOLOMEW de BADLESMERE b: 1275 d: April 14, 1322
>> m: ca. 1305
James C. Woodard
Emmeline? Her husband certainly did. Does anyone have a complete listing
of Juliana's children? Were any born after Emmeline's death? Is there
evidence of a previous marriage for Maurice fitz Maurice?
Jim
Dcrdcr4 wrote in message <19990129051936...@ng27.aol.com>...
sk...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:59:27 GMT, sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >On 3 Jan 1999 19:41:19 -0800, leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
>> >wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> >>------------------------------------------------
>> >>Generation IV
>> >>1st marriage
>> >>1.Elisabeth (Isabella) de Montfort
>> >> Dame de Nogent-le-Roi
>> >> married
>> >> Raoul III de Tosny, Sire de Conches, son of Roger I
>> >> de Conches and NN of Barcelona
>> >>
>> ><SNIP>
>> >Concerning Elisabeth (Isabella) and Raoul:
>> >First, I have him as "Ralph" -- is there a prfeferred name for him?
>> >Second, does anyone know the parents of NN of Barcelona?
>> >Third, I have a line (below) from them to Henry V -- any corrections
>> >will be gratefully read!
>> >Descent of Henry V from ISABEL de MONTFORT
>> >
>> >1 ISABEL de MONTFORT b: ca. 1056
>> > +RALPH de TOENI III b: ca. 1025 d: April 24, 1101
>> >2 RALPH de TOENI IV b: ca. 1078 d: 1126
>> > +ALICE of HUNTINGDON b: ca. 1077 d: Aft. 1126 m: 1103
>> >3 MARGARET de TOENI b: 1109 d: 1185
>> <SNIP>
>> Margaret had, according to my research, a brother, whose descendants
>> involve two questions important to the ancestry of the Littleton
>> family of early Virginia:
>>
>> 13 ALICE GREY b. ca. 1423 There is another issue here. R.P.
>> Robins' "Tentative Pedigree of the Littleton Family of Virginia" in 41
>> New England Historic and Genealogical Register 364 (1887) states that
>> Sir Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. (infra) married "Joan, widow of Philip
>> Chetwynd ... and daughter of Sir William Burley, Knt., of Broomscroft
>> Castle ... by his wife Ellen, daughter of John Grendon." But Dr.
>> Robins is alone (as far as I have found) in his identification of Sir
>> William Burley's wife. All of the other sources I have seen, which
>> identify a mother of a Joan (or Joane, or Joanne) Burley who married a
>> Littleton or a Chetwynd, identify said mother as Alice Grey (or
>> de_Grey, or Gray). All of those sources show that Alice Grey was the
>> eighth great grandaughter of Edward I. Many show more than one line
>> of descent from Edward I to her.
>
>
>And Dr. Robins alone is correct.
TOUCHÉ!
>The evidence can be found in Coll.
>Hist. Staffordshire, William Salt Soc. 1915 "Walter Chetwynd's History
>of Pirehill Hundred." I'm sorry that I don't have the exact page number.
>
Can you give me a library where this work might be available on
inter-library loan?
>The Burleys have been badly bollixed with two different Burley families
>who adored the names John and William grafted together. We are
>attempting to do a separation and print an article concerning it. That
>is not a royal we. There are three of us working on the project.
>
It might then have been an "editorial we." I do hope when it's
published (if I live so long) you'll post a notice here, and if you do
I promise not to scream "SPAM!"
>Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
sk...@ix.netcom.com
White) wrote:
>Nathaniel Taylor wrote --
>
><< Todd, really. That's the 'Buschwa Cartulary', as one can conclude from
>the attempts, ad nauseam [<=recte, BTW], by another poster to impugn its
>value in this particular point. >>
>
>Is that similar to a "Bush League" Cartulary? <G>
>
Let's keep the politics out of this.
>
>
>
>Vickie Elam White
>10265...@compuserve.com
U...@aol.com
lma...@worldnet.att.net writes:
> ve always had a bit of a problem with this line. Interesting to note
> that you have Emmeline born about
> 1250 with her daughter born the year before! Ive examined this line here
> before and had some chronological
> problems.
>
> One of these days I'll have to check some IPMs to see how valid the
> connection is, particularly if Margaret and
> her sister Maud are indeed the daughters of Juliana.
>
> Leslie
>
Juliana, wife of Thomas de Clare, is probably the daughter of Maurice Fitz
Maurice Fitz Gerald, as people claim. It's just that her mother isn't
Emmeline Longespee. I should add that Emmeline never appears in English
records as the widow of Maurice. So, I can't even be sure that Emmeline was
married to Juliana's father. However, my guess is that Emmeline was married
to Maurice, even if she wasn't Juliana's mother.
I hope that helps. All for now. As ever, Douglas Richardson
Dave
Vickie Elam White
<< I've never heard of the English cartulary which you guys have cited in
your
postings. You apparently mean the Bradenstoke Cartulary. That
publication
contains two charters in which William Longespee specifically refers to his
mother as Countess Ida. >>
Sorry, you evidently didn't get the joke. That's what the <g> means --
grin.
Todd, Nat, Kay Allen, and I (and others) had posted dozens of messages
discussing
the Bradenstoke Cartulary in the past, and that's kind of what we were
referring to. But that was before you joined us, so obviously you didn't
know
that. I apologize, but we were getting impatient waiting for your article
on Ida
to appear!! <G>
If you check the archives at DejaNews you could browse through our
past discussions on Ida, using "Countess Ida" or "Longespee" or our names
as keywords.
Later.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
David Collyer
+WILLIAM FERRERS b: ca. April 25, 1372 d: May 18, 1446
m: ca. May 30, 1394
12 MARGARET FERRERS b: ca. 1395
Could this William FERRERS and Philippa de CLIFFORD be the parents of
Matilda FERRERS who married John RALEIGH of Fardell, Cornwall, and had
Alice RALEIGH who married Henry de POMEROY?
If not does anyone know who Matilda FERRERS' parents were?
Thanks
David in Ballarat, Australia
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In article <36B11F...@po.cwru.edu>, ta...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
> >sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> +HENRY II of ENGLAND b: March 05, 1132/33 d: July 06, 1189
> >
> >name of the mother of William Longespee. The Buckfast cartulary records
>
> Todd, really. That's the 'Buschwa Cartulary', as one can conclude from
> the attempts, ad nauseam [<=recte, BTW], by another poster to impugn its
> value in this particular point.
Yes, sorry all> I was looking at Buckfast a short time ago regarding
the Prouz/Helion connection and had a little brain lapse. Bradenstock
it is.
taf
William Addams Reitwiesner
>On 28 Jan 1999 19:13:40 -0800, en...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Cristopher
>Nash) wrote:
>>Some pedigrees depending on this marriage cite as source a marriage
>>contract in Excerpta Rot. Finium, I, 32, & MacLean's _History of Trigg
>>Manor, Cornwall_, I, 65. The contract we know about, but it can't prove
>>descents ascribed to such a marriage (such as that of Alice de Toni who m.
>>Guy de Beauchamp, E of Warwick).
>>
>I'm sorry to say you're dealing with a rank amateur here, who can't
>always interpret abbreviated citations well enough to go look for the
>works. What is "CP?" What is the expansion of "Rot..?"
"CP" is the second edition of Cokayne's *Complete Peerage*
"Rot." stands for "Rotuli". That title means "Extracts from the Rolls of
Fines".
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."